Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-03240
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
CFPB v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C.: Judge Karas adjusted the enforcement briefing schedule and granted Moroney’s request to stay her separate case.
The Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C., Ms. Moroney, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The order changed the schedule for the Bureau’s enforcement petition and paused Moroney’s separate case.
What happened
In CFPB v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C., the Law Offices asked the court to combine two related cases and pause them while the Supreme Court considered a separate case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Bureau agreed that combining the cases might be efficient but opposed delaying its petition to enforce a civil investigative demand.
The Bureau also opposed pausing its enforcement case until July 1. It argued that the existing schedule gave the parties enough time to address the Supreme Court’s decision and other issues. Alternatively, it proposed moving the briefing deadlines instead of pausing the case.
Judge Karas ruled that pausing both cases and holding a scheduling conference was unnecessary. He adjusted the enforcement case’s schedule, granted Moroney’s request to pause her separate case until the Bureau’s petition is resolved, and deferred any renewed request to combine the cases until afterward.
The detailed version
- Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C. · No. 7:20-cv-03240
- Kenneth Karas
- June 12, 2020
Background
The opinion concerns two related cases in the Southern District of New York: the Bureau’s petition to enforce a civil investigative demand against the Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C. (LOCM), No. 7:20-cv-03240-KMK, and LOCM’s separate case against the Bureau, No. 7:19-cv-11594-KMK.
LOCM asked the court to consolidate the cases and stay them. The Bureau did not oppose consolidation for administrative efficiency and judicial economy, but it opposed delaying the enforcement proceeding to match the schedule LOCM proposed for its separate lawsuit. The Bureau also opposed LOCM’s request to stay the enforcement proceeding until July 1. The parties were awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, which could affect issues in the enforcement proceeding.
Ruling
Judge Karas agreed with the Bureau that staying both cases and then holding a scheduling conference was unnecessary. Instead, the court adjusted the briefing schedule in the Bureau’s enforcement proceeding: LOCM’s opposition was due no later than July 15, 2020; the Bureau’s response was due no later than July 29, 2020; and oral argument was scheduled for August 18, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.
The court granted Ms. Moroney’s request to stay her separate case, No. 19-CV-11594, until the Bureau’s petition was resolved. The court stated that this would avoid duplicating work and that the decision on the civil investigative demand could affect claims in Moroney’s case. The court did not decide the consolidation request at this stage; it said it would consider any renewed request for consolidation afterward.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.